What are conservatives lying about this week?

Among other things, the economic impact of divorce. Via the G-Spot, which notes

a new study released by the Institute for American Values and other conservative groups. This report purports to show that divorce costs American taxpayers some $112 billion per year. Only, it really doesn't. As Wolfers writes, the researchers "counted costs and ignored benefits":

The Ananat-Michaels result is that divorce seems to help the finances of about as many women as it hurts, and those who gain, may gain more than those who lose. But this report counts up the costs to the taxpayer from the women who lose income, but refuses to count even a single dollar of the rise in taxes linked to those who gain income. Moreover, these winners are not only paying higher taxes — their kids are probably also committing less crimes, and they hope to transmit their higher economic status to their kids, who in turn will also pay more taxes. Moreover, the link between divorce and crime is not so obvious — as dissolving violent marriages reduces domestic violence.

Well not counting the benefits, that was pretty dumb. But wait, it gets worse:

Amazingly, the advocates put together “fiscal” costs of divorce without even understanding the tax code. The U.S. tax system is structured so that when poor single mothers marry men with higher incomes, in most cases, the total tax paid by husband and wife would fall. Yet this isn’t counted.

Those poor single women aren’t robbing us of tax revenue, they are actually paying more than if they were married! (Yes, the tax code does include a marriage penalty for some couples who are both high earners, but for most couples, the U.S. gives you a tax break for getting married.)

D'oh!

The authors of the report make one other whopper of a mistake, they "fundamentally miss what marriage is about":

Many of the gains from marriage that they count are gains mainly from forcing poor single women to live with others, thereby realizing economies of scale. If there is a fiscal case to be made for encouraging such behavior, the same fiscal case suggests we should encourage them to live with just about anyone — a same-sex lover, a polygamous family, or even with good friends. Yet for some reason, the advocates seem reluctant to extend their argument to its natural conclusion.

This reminds me of Echidne's excellent snark: "If two parents are better than one parent, how about ten parents per family?"

Kathy G calls such right-wing phony-balony social science "researchiness." I.e., to many conservatives, social science doesn't exist in order to learn and convey truths about the world, but to give mere conservative opinions the veneer of respectability.

Views expressed on this page are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Campaign for America's Future or Institute for America's Future