Posted on 03/03/2007 2:02:55 PM PST by NormsRevenge
A Republican lawmaker who co-authored a bill that would give every child born in California a $500 savings account has withdrawn his support following a backlash within his own party.
Sen. Bob Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga, who had promoted the measure as a good investment, announced Friday he no longer supported the bill he had introduced two days before with Democrat Sen. Darrel Steinberg.
The surprise move came after fellow Republicans questioned the measure's $285 million cost and inclusion of children of illegal immigrants.
In a press release, Dutton said that thousands of Californians had asked him "what I was thinking" over the past 48 hours. Although he defended the savings account idea as a way for Republicans to help individuals become self-sufficient, Dutton said he could not support the bill because of the state's deteriorating fiscal stability.
"In light of the state's deteriorating fiscal situation, I cannot support the bill as currently written," Dutton said in a statement.
Under the measure, every child born in California after Jan. 1, 2008, would receive the money in a savings account. They could withdraw the money once they turn 18 for education expenses, a down payment on a home or retirement. It would cost taxpayers about $285 million a year.
Among the critics was state Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, who sent an e-mail to his supporters saying the bill would create "a new wave of illegal immigration."
Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said hysteria over immigration had pressured his colleague to withdraw his support.
"Let's get one thing straight: 90 percent of the calls and the talk radio and all the hysteria is about one issue and one issue only - immigration," Steinberg said. "It is all about xenophobia and there is a lot of hatred out there and we need to stand up against it. A kid is a kid is a kid."
If the bill is passed, California would be the first state in the nation with child savings accounts. A similar national savings program has been pending in Congress since 2005.
About 566,000 children are expected to be born in California next year.
If families added $50 a month to the state's initial contribution, the savings account would grow to nearly $17,500 at 5 percent interest over 18 years.
He is tired of people laughing at him.
I heard Tom McClintock last night saying that he had pulled his support for it.. I bet he got hammered email and call wise..
Ha! Ha!
This is the problem with legislatures. All the laws were basically written long, long ago. They mainly exist now to come up with stupid ideas like this one.
What a maroon.
"he defended the savings account idea as a way for Republicans to help individuals become self-sufficient"
By giving them free money from other taxpayers?
A Republican suggested this crap??? What more can the GOP do to flip off the base?
If families just put in $50 a month to zero state initial contribution it would grow to about $16,300 over 18 years. What does that $17,500 have to do with anything other than making it look like the state's $500 "investment" is going to grow to a huge number for each child (with a little handwaving to distract you from the $600/year the parents would have to save to get to that final amount)?
Nothing says "Rugged Individualism" like a big government check.
No wonder the GOP is in trouble.
Creeping Socialism? I sure hope it's not contagious.
Let's give the taxpayers a tiny bit of their money back, only to take 10x more next year, because we're in the hole for 4 billion! (Running a State...according to Jon S. Corslime, D NJ)
As I read this, he thinks it would be doable in more prosperous times,, it didn't take him long to rescind his support with the acknowledgment of the state continuing to run in deficit mode.
At least he didn't propose to float a bond to cover it like a certain someone else has for everything else, and will propose more. ;-)
It's an election year. The entire State Assembly is up for reelection this year. Just in time for the dopey voter to receive their rebate checks in October. He raised the sales tax to reduce the deficit, only to give it away and double the debt. A real Wall St. whiz!
I believe the election will be next year, 2008.
I stand corrected. Still, it's the dopey voters and Gov. that tick me off.
Agreed. I can only try to not be a dopey voter myself.
Not if you stick to your principles and remember all handouts come with a price.
I was talking with my wife a few minutes ago and we both thought it would be a good idea to raise the voting age back to 21, with the exception that if you're active military you can vote if you are under 21. Would that take an amendment appeal?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.