Government 1 Church 0

Government’s gone and done it again.  Local government, no less.  Stepped out in front of the church to serve family needs in a tangible, meaningful way.  Today’s Indianapolis Star reports that the city of Carmel will help its employees with the cost of adopting a child as part of its employee benefit package  - up to $500 per child with a maximum of $10,000 per employee.

This is one in a string of creative policies by the city of Carmel to build a cutting-edge community and a progressive local government approach.  But should tax dollars go toward government employees’ adoption costs? 

Conservatives will tell you no. Churches will say the demand is too great and costs too high. Liberals will want higher dollar thresholds (and throw in a puppy).  Gay activists will demand to be included.  Business leaders will say it is a competitive move to attract workforce. 

I suggest that the responsibility to care for abandoned children lands squarely on the doorstep of the church.  Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. –James 1:26-27

But until the church re-calibrates its priorities and steps up in greater numbers, children languish in state custody and foster care, which is both harmful to them and costly for us.  Last I checked, the average waiting time for not-cute-babies awaiting adoption in Indiana was seven years!

There are state tax incentives to adopt.  Let the city of Carmel sweeten the benefit and assist in the effort. 

Just one caveat:  adoptions must be from Indiana. 

Comments

[kevin f.]

What I find humorous in all of this, is that Carmel leadership is solid Republican all the from the Mayor's office down to Dogcatcher.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Sue Swayze]

Sorry - need to correct my final sentence. I'm saying that I believe adoptions SHOULD be from Indiana (my suggestion to them), not that their new policy includes that.

[Friendly Critic]

Sue, Certainly IFI's encouragement of adoption as an alternative to abortion, as well as a means of providing a supportive and loving home for children in a variety of situations, is quite worthwhile. Since I know we wouldn't agree concerning the eligibility of gays and lesbians to participate in a program such as Carmel's, much let alone a church-sponsored program, I'll not go down that path.

I am curious about the rather wide difference in adoption costs you refer to. Do you have any numbers representing the spread in purely domestic (let's say just Indiana adoptive parents, Indiana adoptees) adoptions? It would seem that working for anything that help reduce these costs would be a good thing, whether or not the taxpayers or collection plate donors ultimately helped in the task.

[Sue Swayze]

FC: I agree, but don't have any info on adoption costs. Not sure why Carmel settled on $5,000 per child but one could assume it had more to do with a fiscal note (if all employees used this feature it would cost x) than actual costs. I do find it suprising they'd include two, not just one - bet someone will ask if they can use all $10,000 on one. Will be interesting to see how it works out.